TMI Blog1976 (3) TMI 82X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acol. He purchases coconuts from the agriculturists who bring the goods to the appellant s premises and take cash for them. Thus, for the purchase of the goods the assessee has to keep cash in his business premises. On 13th June, 1971 in this might the roof of the business premises was opened and a burglar removed cash to the extent of Rs. 5,840. The assessee who was in the premises was sleeping i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lly. The decision relied on by the Departmental Representative appears to support their contention. In that case, a stranger came to the assessee s shop during the business hours and removed the cash without the knowledge of the assessee. The Tribunal allowed the claim and the High Court held that such loss did not spring directly from the assessee s business and so not incidental to the carrying ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... house owner and not inidental to business. They did not express any definite opinion about the correctness about this illustration but held that the observations would not be applicable in the case of banking company. The learned judges then proceeded to consider how far a loss caused by robbery or dacoity could be considered incidental to business. They approved the decision in Motipur Sugar Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y to the bank. In my opinion the occasion for the loss of the present appellant was the operation of its business in the normal way, with the result that the cash was stolen on the premises at that particular time, and the possibility of such plunder constituted an attraction to a particular type of criminal, including both the safe-blower and the armed burglar." 5. We think, therefore, that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
